1) Are there any other benefits to having an array class apart from
getting rid of .cwise() to do element wise multiplications?
2) I haven't understood how this would help the quaternion class and
the related things.
3) A million Vector3f's would still not be vectorized as they are not
a multiple of packet size, or will they? Is there a possibility to
automagically handle the SOA form instead of the usual AOS form with
this proposal? If we are doing this, it will be good to consider this
from the SOA pov as well.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Boris Mansencal
<boris.mansencal@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a bit late but I just wanted to say that I am very favorable to have
> true array support in Eigen.
>
>
> On 11/06/2009 01:58 PM, Gael Guennebaud wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I now we already have way too much modules/features which have to be
>> polished before thinking about new features, but anyway, let me do this
>> proposal.
>>
>> Eigen has a very good support for mathematical matrices. Even though many
>> kind of array-like operations can be performed on our matrices via the
>> cwise() prefix, we are still lacking a true support for array of scalars. In
>> particular, it would be very convenient to have an Array class that you
>> could use just like a scalar value, all operations being berformed
>> coefficient wise.
>
>
> I am just starting to look at Eigen, and an array class is exactly what I
> was looking for.
> I hoped I could have lazy evaluation and SIMD optimizations for simple
> operations on arrays of 'double' and even 'complex'. It would be very useful
> for audio applications.
>
> For now, it is rather cumbersome to have to add some .cwise() here and there
> to have this behaviour. Thus an Array class would be really welcomed.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
> Boris.
>
>
>
>
--
Rohit Garg
http://rpg-314.blogspot.com/
Senior Undergraduate
Department of Physics
Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay